An Exploration of Extradyadic Communicative Messages Following Relational Transgressions in Romantic Relationships

Abstract

The purpose of this longitudinal study was to examine the associations among relational characteristics and extradyadic communication with network members about a romantic partner's relational transgression. Investment Model components were assessed at Time 1 and used to predict communication of transgression-minimizing (i.e., evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, explaining/justifying) and transgression-maximizing (i.e., accusation, criticism, threats) messages to friends and family at Time 2. The general pattern of results indicates that pretransgression relational characteristics influence communication of transgression-maximizing (but not transgression-minimizing) messages to network members. Further, transgression-maximizing messages were associated with decreases in posttransgression commitment, investments, and satisfaction and with increases in perceptions of quality relational alternatives. These findings support the importance of examining negative extradyadic communication about relational difficulties in romantic relationships.

Notes

Note. Primary factor loadings are highlighted in bold.

*p < .05. **p < .001.

Note. Primary factor loadings are highlighted in bold.

*p < .05. **p < .001.

*p < .05. **p < .001.

*p < .05. **p < .001.

*p < .05. **p < .001.

The main study hypotheses predicted relationships between Time 1 IM predictors and extradyadic communication (i.e., transgression-minimizing and transgression-maximizing messages) and between extradyadic communication and Time 2 IM assessments, and, as such, direct effects were examined in the substantive analyses. In addition, the potential for indirect effects exists, such that extradyadic communication may mediate the associations between initial IM assessments and posttransgression (and subsequent extradyadic communication about that transgression) IM assessments. These indirect effects were examined via supplemental analyses using Preacher and Hayes' (2008) bootstrapping procedure with 5000 resamples, but no indirect effects emerged. That is, all of the relevant confidence intervals included zero within their lower and upper limits; thus, the indirect effects were nonsignificant. Theoretically, these results are consistent with past IM research, wherein satisfaction, investment, quality of alternatives, and commitment are highly stable over time (particularly over a relatively short period of time; e.g., Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999; Rusbult, 1983).